scf_create_risk

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already indicate this is not read-only, and the description reinforces that by saying 'write'. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the editor+ role requirement and the fact that likelihood and impact scores populate the 5×5 risk matrix. No contradiction with annotations is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no fluff, and the primary action is front-loaded befure the behavioral detail. Every phrase earnes its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The schema covers field semantics and required parameters well, and the description explains the write nature and role requirement. However, there is no mention of what the tool returns after creation, and the distinction from scf_create_custom_risk is left unstated, which matters given the large sibling list. Reasonable but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that likelihood and impact are not just 1–5 numbers but feed directly into the 5×5 risk matrix, which is not stated in the schema. This modest additional context justifies moving above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new risk assessment') and the resource ('the risk register'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling scf_create_custom_risk, which is a plausible alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides useful context by labeling the operation as 'write' and requiring an 'editor+ role', which helps an agent understand permissions. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over scf_create_custom_risk or other risk-related tools, leaving the differentiation to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.